pastajoe

Reince Priebus and Corey Lewandowski both think the plagiarizing person should be fired. Maybe Trump fired the wrong campaign manager.

That was Republicans, not the general election. And Trump never got a majority of Republican primary voters (45%). So a smaller field may have had more success. Since Trump is now saying no one is going to be fired for plagiarizing the speech, perhaps it was done by someone who can't be fired.

The focus isn't on her (unless she takes responsibility), it's on the campaign that is so undisciplined that they would make such an obvious blunder. And to then deny it's plagiarized, when it's almost word-for-word the same. How would they handle important issues? "President Trump, why did you order a nuclear strike? I didn't order a strike. But there was a nuclear strike. Yeah, so? Are you saying you didn't order it? Maybe it was Canada, I'm just sayin', there's something going on with them. But Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons. Yeah, so?"

One of the complaints from Republicans about Trump is that he hasn't hired the number of staff normally needed for a campaign, so there might not be enough people around to act as editors. I changed more words in college when working on a pre-Internet term paper due in 30 minutes than were changed in that speech. If they had just inserted the line, "As Michelle Obama said..." It would be a non-issue. Footnote the sources.

This denial of obvious plagiarism hurts the Trump brand of being the "honest" candidate who tells it like it is. There are now reports that one of Paul Manafort's people helped write the speech. So for him to then come out and deny plagiarism by a staff writer, and saying those were her words is throwing Melania under the bus and making her look bad. I can't believe that Donald will let this go without defending his wife. Other new reports say that Melania has become disillusioned with the direction of the campaign, and the reason she wasn't at the Pence announcement was because Donald was pressured by his kids to pick Pence over another candidate he and she was more comfortable with (Christie or Gingrich). In a way I feel sorry for Melania. Unfortunately for her, she has now become the story which will overshadow the convention. In the end it won't matter to the die hard supporters, but it doesn't help with expanding the appeal to undecided voters. And then there was the Trump-Pence interview on 60 Minutes, where when asked about Pence voting for the Iraq war, Trump said it was no big deal. It's in the past and they were given false information. But then he doubled down and said it was a horrible decision by Clinton to vote for it, and showed bad judgement. So bad for Clinton, no big deal for Pence. You can't make this stuff up.

Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on CNN said there was no cribbing of Michelle's speech, they are common words that are often used. This is just another attack on a woman who challenged Hillary Clinton. So they're doubling down instead of just saying a mistake was made by the speechwriter.

It appears that Melania Trump's speech last night plagerized from Michelle Obama's 2008 speech. Not just similar themes, but some of the exact parts of the speech. And in an interview beforehand she said she wrote most of it. Though she's not the candidate, it's a big faux pas for the Trump campaign to not check the speech. Joe Biden had to quit his presidential run when he did it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/19/melania-trumps-speech-appears-to-have-cribbed-from-michelle-obamas-in-2008/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fix-melania-michelle-1250am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The bomb wasn't ready to deploy by the time Germany surrendered. Japan was fire bombed, but it was more difficult because of the lack of airbases close enough to do it frequently. And Japan wouldn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped. That's how fanatical they were.

I put it on for a tonight and just shook my head. Despite the 9 Republican congressional investigations that found no proof of wrongdoing, they're spending the night talking about Benghazi and blaming Clinton. It's just sad how they disregard the facts that don't fit their narrative, and all the people who lap it up.

Meanwhile, hundreds of upset delegates at the Republican convention as the anti-Trumps were denied a roll call vote on the rules. The RNC ignored them to project an image of party unity, and as a result have highlighted the disunity. And with symbolic irony, the Trump motorcade was in an accident (no one injured).

Ohio governors do not have the power to arbitrarily suspend state laws. Some of the items on the list of things Cleveland was allowed to ban; sabers, shovels, water guns, sleeping bags, canned goods, and tennis balls.

The last hope for whites that "want their country back". Increase white births. They want every white guy to make each shot count. Don't waste bullets.

So all the gun owners who say they're primarily for hunting, sport shooting, and collecting have been lying to us.

It will be interesting to see how Pence explains his differences with Trump. He called Trump's attacks on an Indiana-born judge of Mexican heritage "inappropriate," and said his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States was "offensive and unconstitutional." But in his favor with Republicans, he's anti-union, and supported the Indiana proposal for businesses to refuse service to gays based on religious beliefs. We have laws to regulate vehicles (age to drive, test for license, types of vehicles allowed to be driven on public roads, restrictions on modifications), and their primary function is transportation. Just bringing gun control up to the same standards as driving and vehicles would be an improvement.

Given the discussion, I assumed you were referencing police. Just because something originated with the military doesn't mean it can't be adapted for non-military purposes. The development of the internet was advanced by the support of the Defense Department. There are civilian street versions of the HumVee. The tools and tactics have been adapted by the police to meet today's threats. I agree that their use should be scrutinized by the civilians they serve, but the police should have those options available.

And what freedom have we sacrificed by providing the police with the tools they need to carry out their duty; to protect and serve? Perhaps there aren't as many terrorist attacks because they know the capability of our police. And if your loved one was going to be the 101st killed because the police didn't have the tools necessary to stop the threat, you'd wish they had it.

Is that the only way to end the threat and is he alone in the building? The police will look for the option that will prevent or minimize collateral damage, as they did in Dallas. A targeted explosive with no collateral damage was judged as the best option to end the active threat. Each situation has its unique issues. But I want our first responders, the police, to have the tools to handle any situation from a crazed gunman to an organized terrorist attack. They should never be at a disadvantage.

So you want the police to be at a disadvantage when confronting criminals or domestic terrorists who have implements of war (bombs, explosives, assault weapons). That makes no sense. When an active shooter has shown no regard for innocent victims and refuses to surrender, the time for negotiation is over and the police should have to ability to overwhelm that criminal with whatever means necessary.

As long as civilians have access to assault weapons, I want the police to have overwhelming force, not just equal force. The shooter had no regard for others, having shot both civilians and police. He was given the chance to surrender and didn't. The use of whatever force it took to prevent further loss of innocent life was justified.

It's difficult for the first black president to focus on black issues when from the start there was a Congress determined to obstruct, and people, led by Trump, who questioned his legitimacy as a citizen. Remember all the crap he got over the "beer summit".

You downplay my post that explains why it wasn't gross negligence as an op-ed piece, then follow with your own opinion piece that we're then supposed to take as fact. You're a peach. A Georgia peach.

https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_577d08f8e4b09b4c43c1a785/amp?client=safari#

I'm hurt that you would say such a thing. I like postcards. I wish you well in your new country. Will you switch citizenship so you can vote there? Will you become Buffanin(insert country)bywayofAtl? And after 11 hours of testimony, having answered all questions, to say she still lied without proof is lowering the bar to pure partisanship.

What country are you going to that you'll recognize? I hope you'll send us a postcard. And the Benghazi hearings were important to discover the facts and learn what could be done better in the future, such as Congress fully funding State Dept security requests, which they have yet to do. The first couple of hearings were sufficient. When it got to the 9th, it had become a partisan waste of money trying to figure out how they could factually blame Clinton. Which they failed to do.

Petraeus knowingly disclosed classified information to an unauthorized person. Clinton did not. Petraeus lied to the FBI. Clinton did not. The statute in question requires criminal intent. Sorry the facts don't fit the narrative some of you were hoping for after the Benghazi accusations were disproven. Just the facts.